THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE ...

appearance by video and to inform the Defendant how he could
communicate privately with counsel was harmless error. Affirmed.
Case Name: State of Ohio v. James A. Winston
Case No.: Montgomery Co. App. No. 24973
Panel: Grady, Fain, Donovan
Author: Thomas J. Grady
Summary: Trial court erred in finding that Defendant lacked standing to
challenge a warrantless search of an apartment because no evidence
was adduced showing that Defendant, who was not the tenant, was
an overnight guest, when uncontradicted evidence was introduced
that Defendant had stayed in the apartment one and perhaps two
nights prior to the search; in view of that evidence, trial court erred
when it held that Defendant lacked standing to challenge the search
and seizure. Reversed and remanded.
Case Name: State of Ohio v. Terry R. Wilson
Case No.: Montgomery County App. No. 24978
Panel: Grady, Froelich, Hall
Author: Thomas J. Grady
Summary: Court’s statement that it considered the purposes and principles of
sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 demonstrates that the court imposed the
minimum sentence that the court determined will accomplish those
purposes and principles without imposing unnecessary burden on
state resources, which R.C. 2929.11(A) mandates; trial court was not
required to identify the particular facts on which it relied when making
the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) to impose consecutive
sentences. Affirmed. (Froelich, J., concurring); (Hall, J., concurring).
Case Name: State of Ohio v. James F. Rogers
Case No.: Montgomery Co. App. No. 24848
Panel: Grady, Fain, Froelich
Author: Thomas J. Grady
Summary: Continued detention of Defendant, who was a passenger in a vehicle
that had been stopped for a traffic violation, after the purposes of the
stop had been completed, was illegal, tainting Defendant’s consent to
search his apartment that officers requested; court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing as a community control sanction that Defendant
comply with a child support obligation arising from a conviction for
non-support of dependents, and that he abstain from using alcohol,
which his PSI indicates Defendant abuses. Reversed and remanded.
(Froelich, J., concurring).
Case Name: In the Matter of the Estate of Maxine Stevens
Case No.: Champaign App. No. 2012 CA 1
Panel: Grady, Donovan, Froelich
Author: Jeffrey E. Froelich
Summary: The trial court erred in concluding that granddaughter’s filings
questioning the timing and method of another beneficiary’s exercise
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Court of Appeals Case Summary, October 12, 2012 Page 4